Peter B Derman1, Donna D Ohnmeiss2, Abbey Lauderback3, Richard D Guyer4. 1. Texas Back Institute, Plano, Texas, USA pderman@texasback.com. 2. Texas Back Institute Research Foundation, Plano, Texas, USA. 3. Texas Back Institute, Plano, Texas, USA. 4. Center for Disc Replacement at Texas Back Institute, Plano, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of symptomatic lumbar stenosis has traditionally included laminectomy for direct decompression. With increasing options for lumbar interbody fusion, there has been growing interest in indirect decompression to treat degenerative stenosis. The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether indirect decompression via anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) can provide symptomatic relief in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Secondary purposes were to (1) identify risk factors for failure of indirect decompression and (2) to identify risk factors for failure to obtain relief and to compare outcomes between patients undergoing stand-alone ALIF versusand those in whom ALIF was supplemented with posterior instrumentation. METHODS: Chart review was performed on a consecutive series of 568 patients undergoing single-level ALIF without posterior decompression to treat degenerative stenosis during a 5-year period. Failure of indirect decompression was defined as return to the operating room for direct decompression. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare patients who underwent stand-alone ALIF (n = 247) vs those in whom supplemental posterior instrumentation was used (ALIF + PI; n = 321). RESULTS: Reoperation due to failure of indirect decompression occurred in 4.0% (23/568) of patients. The only factor related to failure was age. Patients older than 60 years were more likely to fail indirect decompression than were younger patients (7.0% vs 3.1%, P < 0.05). ALIF and ALIF + PI subgroups both improved significantly when comparing preoperative to postoperative mean scores on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain (all P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between these groups, including reoperation rate for direct decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect decompression via ALIF was effective in treating appropriately selected patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Older patients are at higher risk for failure of indirect decompression-potentially because of greater osseous stenosis as well as subsidence due to age-related diminished bone density with subsequent loss of distraction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports that indirect decompression via ALIF is a viable alternative to direct decompression in appropriately selected patients with degenerative stenosis. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of symptomatic lumbar stenosis has traditionally included laminectomy for direct decompression. With increasing options for lumbar interbody fusion, there has been growing interest in indirect decompression to treat degenerative stenosis. The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether indirect decompression via anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) can provide symptomatic relief in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Secondary purposes were to (1) identify risk factors for failure of indirect decompression and (2) to identify risk factors for failure to obtain relief and to compare outcomes between patients undergoing stand-alone ALIF versusand those in whom ALIF was supplemented with posterior instrumentation. METHODS: Chart review was performed on a consecutive series of 568 patients undergoing single-level ALIF without posterior decompression to treat degenerative stenosis during a 5-year period. Failure of indirect decompression was defined as return to the operating room for direct decompression. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare patients who underwent stand-alone ALIF (n = 247) vs those in whom supplemental posterior instrumentation was used (ALIF + PI; n = 321). RESULTS: Reoperation due to failure of indirect decompression occurred in 4.0% (23/568) of patients. The only factor related to failure was age. Patients older than 60 years were more likely to fail indirect decompression than were younger patients (7.0% vs 3.1%, P < 0.05). ALIF and ALIF + PI subgroups both improved significantly when comparing preoperative to postoperative mean scores on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain (all P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between these groups, including reoperation rate for direct decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect decompression via ALIF was effective in treating appropriately selected patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Older patients are at higher risk for failure of indirect decompression-potentially because of greater osseous stenosis as well as subsidence due to age-related diminished bone density with subsequent loss of distraction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports that indirect decompression via ALIF is a viable alternative to direct decompression in appropriately selected patients with degenerative stenosis. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.